replying to uniQ....Ofcourse fiction has a relationship to fact. However a factual presentation(biography, history, science,etc) whether it be a book,film, etc must be accurate and not contain any lies. Long live the difference between fiction and fact..

Film always manipulates "fact", whether it's presented as documentary, fiction, or otherwise. As long as there are human beings behind the camera and in the editing room, there's a human perspective (that's why security camera footage is so boring).
Think of Leni Riefenstahl's glorifications of Hitler...you could call her work "factual", since she shot what was actually going on. But the camera angles, tracking shots, editing, long shots vs. close-ups, etc. etc. are all choices made by a human being, which effect the final product that strikes your eyeballs. You're no longer looking at a "fact", but someone's version of it.
That's an extreme example. But it's always the case that the film-makers are part of the film, even if the only statement that's made is about their own ineptitude.
And unless they are completely hidden, the presence of the crew and cameras effects the "facts" too. Riefenstahl had her crew dress in nazi uniforms, so that subjects wouldn't act differently because of the presence of "outsiders"...

One of the best accounts of the 1939 World's Fair I've read is "1939: The Lost World of the Fair" by by David Gelernter. In it, the author alternates between a fictional oral history and the real history of the fair. There was no actual person he interviewed; her story is completely made up.

Where would that fit on your ethical scale, jack2? Is it okay? Is it not allowed?

replying to ridetheory...From your description, it seems a good way of telling a story. I doubt that an intelligent reader would confuse the facts with the fiction. The author,s ethics are ok , but not so ,any nitpickers concerned with her novel